h machines and there are too many people, that can cause problems with lines. host: john greenbaum, a senior attorney at the justice department. and the legal director at 40 lawyers right under law. thank you for joining us. that is all for "washington journal" today. we will see u.s. 7:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama and republican mitt romney will be focused on ohio today, one day before election day.

it will both be in columbus. president obama will start the day keeping me in madison, wisconsin. -- it will both be in columbus. mr. romney has four campaign stops today. manchester, new hampshire tonight. we are pleased to cover his million shares bought. c-span asked reporters and political analyst what they're watching for on election night, both on the national and state level. here is what they had to say. >> you always watched the first votes that, in. it varies from year to year. i have done this for decades and i care to remind you of. they come in different places. you have to know the history, county, to interpret the results. once we get a sizable lover of boats and, i will look at the critical counties in north virginia. i will look up to chesterfield,

richmond area. does it get over 40? got 45 percent last time. i am for it to look to virginia beach, which as virginia's largest city in population. fairfax is the largest county, but repeated it -- but virginia beach is the largest city. it tends to be more conservative and republican because of the large military population. mccain carry that very narrowly. there is no way will be that close this time. i want to see what percentage is president of of getting in virginia beach. those are just a few examples. >> you could see more of these interviews at c-span.org.

also, check out the social media section to see what reporters are seeing. take part in the discussion tomorrow, election night, at c- span.org. vice presidential candidates are busy today on the trail. hear paul ryan and johnstown, colorado. that will be like here on c- span. >> the same course we a ban on will not lead to a better destination. the same path means 20 trillion in debt at the end of a second term that he will not have. it means crippling unemployment. it means that it take, pate, the press take on values, davis stated military and another recession. the question of this election comes down to this, do you want more of the same or do you want real change? >> we know what change it looks

like. given more power to the biggest big has not changed. another five trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy is not change. refusing to eat answer questions about the details of the politics until after the election as deftly not change. changing the facts when they are inconvenient to your campaign, not change. >> tuesday night watch why the election coverage on c-span with president obama from chicago and mitt romney in washington. watch concession speeches conced

election speeches tuesday night. american enterprise institute intercollegiate studies institute and leaders of the institute.

we will be later introduced tonight by the moderator. i would like to thank all of you for going out of the way to attend the campus debate. 20 years ago my father had me in his journey to america. my father came to what he later called the land of opportunity. no friend or family members to make his life here easier in america. there is one thing my father went beyond imagining, and that was believed. belief that here in this nation if you work hard, if you are patient and take responsibility for your own actions it could build your success. a belief that in america you have a chance for dreams and venture your children will have a like you ever had.

regardless of who you love, what you worship or what politically keep a hold to, that you have a right to freedom with the restraints or boundaries. this is what my father believed to be the american dream. this is still the american dream. we'll endorse parent -- parents, children, and it would to ourselves to make sure we the american dream of american reality. yet today we live in a time of edon, thesefree o american citizens with pain and without process -- a process. but what we are gauged it will topple wars.

they remain to be an issue for national security of civilians in the home front. live at time were american citizens as young as 16-years- old can be easily assassins by executive order. this is not the dream our ancestors left everything for. this is not the dream my father sacrificed everything for. this is not the american dream. there is one thing that holds true beyond the birth of the nation and holds true for all americans. i can help pull -- but to feel we are among the greatest of generations. we hold the world at our fingertips.

through the innovation of social media, we brought the world close together and have brought stories of communication shared among all individuals. we live in a time of blessing. after having an article published in an online magazine and a republished and a major publication and pakistan proves to me you do have a future. this is why i am so honored to host the debate tonight with three speakers with three different perspectives. i hope to learn a lot tonight through criticism and debate. i truly believe discussions among these different perspectives and opinions can pave the way for the american dream all of us have for many years. today you will read our own

destiny. i cannot think of any person to lead a debate more eloquently, officially and equally. it is an individual who has the right to achieve his american dream. in the city of charleston, south carolina, he began his career as a southern of venture. he used his gift of writing to publish in the american spectator and young american revolution. it is an honor and great pleasure to introduce you to tonight's moderator. please join me in putting your hands together for mr. jack hunter. [applause] >> it is a pleasure to be with you all. for this campus debates between

what is supposed to be a libertarian, liberal, and conservative. the conservative will be here eventually. he is escaping a flaming metro car. that is always hard to contend with. this is going to be a fun evening. i would like to think young americans for liberty. college republicans and the labels for putting on this event. i will introduce the speakers that are here. first of all, mr. bill share will share the online campaign manager of the campaign for america's future and author of wheat, do not move to canada. he is the host of the liberal oasis' radio show pot test with tracie olson. with conservative writer, matt lewis. he has been published in the new

york times. minneapolis star tribune, and these times as made appearances on cnn, mn sbc and other tv and radio output. representing the libertarian perspective tonight is mr. tim cavanaugh. >> representing the libertarian perspective is tim cavanaugh. he has worked as the online editor of the los angeles times. his work has appeared in "the washington post," -- san francisco magazine, mother jones and many others. joining us. right now, a good way to get started. this was supposed to be three representatives of three perspectives. we are in the midst of the campaign season.

whatever is in between. libertarian will have an influence on this election. individually describing what it libertarian. we start with mr. scher. >> thanks very much for doing this. young americans for liberty, thank you for having us here. i define liberalism as the three r's. a government that is representative of all people, that is responsive to the people's concerns, and responsible for managing our resources financial and natural. when america has been its most artificially restrained from what it can do, which is what we saw in the previous decade, when there are not rules of the road

institutions, who are not -- we infrastructure and education, we have some serious obstacles. when government is in response to what the people are asking it to do, is active in a smart and responsible way, we can move the depression as we had with the recovery act. make sure most americans are covered while cutting our costs and averting long-term debt issues as we did with obama- care. these are the kinds of initiatives which i think liberals have assessed. we are in a time where we can have three -- >> hi, i'm tim. thanks for having me. i am a libertarian. that is a philosophy that is

popularly described as being conservative. i do not think that is a broadit is a popular one because it allows libertarians to say, that is 22% of the voters, are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. of ownership of yourself. you own a lot of stuff. the first thing you own is yourself, your mind, your body, your heart. nobody is in a better position than you are. even if somebody were in a unlikely given everything we know about knowledge and personality that that still do because your mistakes are your own. that is the founding principle, the philosophy of libertarianism. it -- that's pretty -- a pretty far basis from the practical politics bill was talking about. i look for talking about how we

averted the global depression. that is where we come from. the individual is prior to the state. life, liberty, and pursuit of about -- are your rights of everybody. >> since you mentioned a global depression, our economy is not the way a lot of people wanted to be. where they should be. of the proper economic policy that will create the most wealth people? happened in the past four years. gdp was collapsing, -8%. economy in free fall. we are not where we want to be. relative to where we were four years ago, we are at 2% growth versus -8%.

crises. recessions. of 1982, for example. they bounced back within a year. growth shot up in 1983. obama must be worse than reagan. it is a different kind of recession. when there is a credit crunch, when it is hard to get credit, to get the financial sector up and running again, traditionally those take a longer time. the great depression, forfdr had unemployment with 25%. at the end of his first term, it was 17%. people said, that is better than where we were. what we have with the recovery act is it -- it's obama's

response to the public. we have elected a guy to fill in this gap in economic demand we are suffering. to do that, the private sector is not going to do it because they are being battered by this credit crunch. by the collapse of the banks. the public sector is your entity of last resort to step in and prevent everything from going to the floor. we are not in free fall anymore, but we are not where we should be. there are lots of things that we need to do to be in a better place. on its own. if they were doing it, i would not supplant them for no reason. but they are not going to on their own upgrade our roads and bridges. they are not going to help us avert a climate crisis.

own invest in a lot of cutting edge green technology that is not proven to be commercially nature's clock is ticking. that is not how private sector decisions are made. that -- only a public sector entity will do that. we have that kind of work to do. it will leave us with a better nation and a better world afterwards. it is work that has to get done. and we have the jobs crisis. and interest rates are very low. it is unusual. because rates are so low. you can invest in infrastructure and energy projects and not bust the budget by doing so. perfect conditions for a more robust government. and better schools and hire more teachers. it is a good time for that kind of government, that responsive, representative government.

unfortunately, that is what people are doing. we have massive, high levels of debt. public and private. savings are below 4%. they are about as low as they were in the middle of the last decade. nothing is getting better. you cannot eat gdp. nobody sees any light coming along. if freefall is so bad, should we not see that in declining prices? yet we are not. we have all the institutions of finance and the federal reserve and the government trying to prevent prices from coming down, when if you look at a gallop poll the other day, it asked -- this is another question that did not come up in the debate. what is your most, your biggest concern about the economy? by far, by a factor of two, the

largest number of people said, higher prices. i do not like prices going up. yet, we are told every day there is no inflation. we have seen a decline in housing prices. but they are still not to a level where most people can afford to buy. if you take the historical level of affordability as a factor of how much people are earning every year, we have seen -- we have averted ourselves into this endless stagnation. people need to take time into consideration. it has been five years. and running. i would say that we should probably going back to 2001 to say when our economic stagnation began. bubble in housing prices. the fact that you have free fall for a while maybe the smartest

thing to do is to let that continue to collapse and let prices hit bottom and then dig see how it is any better than anben bernanke is on quantitativethis is not all obama's fault. this goes back five years. people forget how many bailouts there were in the last two years of george w. bush's term. he himself said he had to give up his free-market ideals to save the economy. what did he save? you guys will be graduating in a couple of years. what kind of market are you going to be saving? i do not think so.

and yet it is considered really strange. it does not get brought up in the debate. neither major party address this at all. like me, who say, we do not need to change the medicine. the medicine is what is killing the patient. the inflation question. generally speaking, inflation is in check. food and energy. that can give you the perception of prices being out of hand. you go to the supermarket or follow up your car once a week or more. that gets under your skin. it creates an index that separates them from energy because that is a noisy, up and down figure. core inflation is the price of everything else. that is pretty stable. to your keynesian point, the basic keynesian argument that john maynard keynes pushed

during the great depression -- at the time, people had the notion that government should retrench. keep the budget balanced, do not be reckless. we should ride out the storm. keynes says that is not what will work out best. sector is retrenching. somebody has to step in, and a last resort is the government. when that happened with the fdr, it happened mildly at first. we thought keynes was full of himself. we had infrastructure and some infrastructure was taking so long. then world war ii came along and

we cranked it up. the depression ended. the recovery is a classic example. what tim is suggesting that maybe that is not so great. maybe if the government stayed away and you hit rock bottom, that would lead to a more vibrant economy at the end of the day. there is an argument about that in guards to the banks. we should not bail out the banks. let them hit rock bottom. weed out the rotting wood. let them clean themselves up. maybe tim is right. maybe those folks are right about the banks. it's a hell of a bet if you're wrong. >> i do not want to spend all night on inflation and how it gets measured, but if you are suspicious of a measure of inflation that counts everything except what you need to stay alive, you are right to be suspicious.

inflation in check is the problem. we have had a 11%, since 2007, your dollar now buys 11 cents less than it did in 2007. there has been no growth and no decrease in unemployment and no benefit to anybody out there. this is what is so maddening. when the liberals make this argument. it is the people at the bottom. mellencamp says, the simple man pays the bills. these are people running on a-- further back. all have to do is read the paper and watch your phone to know what is going on. the idea that we are going to solve this through more inflation and through more spending.

this is a question i have for everybody that proposes the keynesian -- to people in the audience -- are they familiar with the idea of the keynesian liquidity trap and the idea that you need, the government needs to step in to pick up the slack in aggregate demand? right. the idea is that the government needs to spend on the deficit and they need to go further into debt in order to push all the money out into the economy that is not in the economy because everybody is afraid to spend. the great depression went on for more than 10 years after the rooseveltsian stimulus started. if your count world war ii and even christina romer has refuted the idea that the war ended the depression. none of that. the original failure of keynesian was during the

depression. nobody saw it that way. if you take that seriously. taking up slack in demand is what we need to do, how much do we need to spend? what is the dollar figure that yeah. >> there is a lot of debate about this during the recovery. it is hard to come up with a precise figure because we are human beings. that believe that everything is track ball and you use>> there was internal debate in the obama administration, how big is the gap? and how much should the much should it laid the floor and let the private sector do the rest? to some extent, it was a political question. how much can you get congress to accept? how much was it willing to pass?

at larry summers because christina romer was suggesting you had to go over $1 trillion. that was necessary. and there is, summers said, there is no way you are getting that number through congress. the romers of the world look more correct. if we are able to get some more better place today. there is a counter argument that on paper may be that is true, but there is only so much that government can do to process that money in a constructive way. you are hitting the ceiling of diminishing returns. you don't know who is exactly right. as far as speed of government action is concerned, the government is too slow to act. this is a case where they did not wait until rock bottom. freefall. it was not the exact, perfect number, but it was pretty good.

>> my view is all of these problems that are already there. the failure of the future of the free market is not a bug. static state. that is where we have been for five years. if you like this, there is plenty more coming. week's election. >> let me ask you about a question that addresses the differences between liberals and libertarians. and we will get to conservatives when they get here. i address this to you first, tim.

mr. scher mentioned it was the job of the public sector towe heard that in this election. do not even need the state to planning for infrastructure? expertise. it is not my bailiwick. i do not like paying tolls. i do not like driving through delaware and maryland. that is one way, more private building of roads. none of these are simple solutions. part of my philosophy is that bigger is not necessarily better. constitution is the problem. articles of confederation. i do not know the united states needs to stretch from sea to shining sea. i do not see why we need to have these superhighways that go through and destroy neighborhoods, why we need to destroy neighborhoods. yeah, there is some benefit in terms of convenience and drivability and so forth.

i do not know that that would not be solved in other ways through more county roads, more state roads, more private roads. again, if you go to reason, you can find a lot more people with roads that make these arguments more persuasively than i can. infrastructure case. our conservative is not here because he took public transportation. i wanted to get that out there. we did not. and we are here. >> that's right. >> i would say that d.c.'s public transportation is a disgrace. i moved here from los angeles who has a fairly decent public transportation system. bus, which of course, people of the right sort are never willing to take the bus. but the people who need public

transportation take the bus. i go to lebanon all the time. and i can get from the north of lebanon to the south on a couple of bucks. licensed. i presume that a lot of them arein d.c., we have this endless battle going on about the taxicabs medallion system, which is straight up public choice. transportation does not need to be mapped out in some central room. it is much better if people make their own decisions about transportation. a lot of people choose bikes. >> more bike paths made by the government. i have never heard people say that d.c. metro was worse than los angeles public transportation. [laughter]

worth noting. not every government decision is going to be a good one. it is possible to make a bad government decision. but it is not fair to say that not good. therefore, all infrastructure is bad. you could have private corporations that behave badly. sector are humans that make mistakes. is going to be necessary to have a healthy, functioning society that has both liberty and health and security? what i find strange about modern conservatism, and i am sorry that jim is not here. i'd ask him. most conservatives would say they are not for no government. they are for limited government. but most conservatives, i think, if you talk to them privately would agree that there are some things that only government is going to do, like roads and

bridges. now we are in the middle of thefema is an interesting question that befuddles me because it started under jimmy carter, one of his bureaucratic innovations. and reagan did not take it seriously, and bush senior did not take it seriously. in 1992, bush senior got burned with hurricane andrew. clinton wrote in his autobiography, i made a mental note -- i will not get elected because of my disaster management. but i could lose this job if i hire a pro and whip fema into

shape. after 8 years which everybody likes. bush for, no obvious reason, decides, forget it. let's put in political cronies again. let's go back to the old way. he got burned. so obama comes back and puts in a pro. you have not heard much about fema the past few years because when they do a good job you do not hear about it. it is one of the challenges of being a liberal. romney is on record saying that any opportunity you tend to turn it over to the state or private sector, you should do it. why can't a conservative say, this works? legitimate question, especially in the aftermath of sandy. we had an article in "the new york times" that big storms require big government.

i have a brother there right now who weathered out the storm. he has his own generator. he is not a survivalist. he's a pilot with delta air lines, who ordinarily tells me, you are an idiot libertarian. anybody who does not vote for obama is a racist, etc. in the last couple of days, he has been ranting about how nobody is allowed back on the island. all of the people who evacuated -- this is a great example of setting up perverse incentives. next time, when they tell you to evacuate, you would be a fool to do so, because it has shown after half a week, they are not letting anybody back on the island. he is ranting. the government needs to get out of our way, let people back on the island. who is better at bringing themselves back from a disaster

than the people who actually live there and have homes there and operate businesses there? the jury is out on sandy and thethe governor of new jersey is in a fight with the mayor of atlantic city right now over whether he forced enough people to evacuate. pushing people around and forcing people to do things is not the way to recover from a disaster. including interesting stuff by a leftist writer, about voluntary communities and the way they come together in the face of disaster. new orleans and brownie deservedbut part of the problem is that we should not be relying on the even in these terrible disaster situations. there is going to be a situation where you need more brute force. and only -- brute force is the one thing that government is good at.

but those tend to happen in the headlines more than they have been on the individual level. people need to, first of all, be discouraged from building houses in hurricane zones. we do not need to get too deep into that. the government subsidizes your where you should not be building in the first place. if you let the price of that go up, people would not be in that situation. when a disaster hits, it is like anything else, if you are depending on the government to save you, you are probably in bigger trouble than you know. >> going back to the basic differences between liberals and libertarians -- a function of the state in relation to the public and private sectors -- let me ask you, bill. there was a great piece in reason magazine after the

democratic national convention. it was something called along the lines of "the big question." all the speakers talked about we need this program for this or that. every obama speech is that we will do this, infrastructure, come together. all these different programs. barack obama is looking at a $16 trillion national debt, taking it from bush's $10 trillion. in the 1990's under bill clinton, we had $4 trillion. you were asked earlier to give a number as far as stimulus. what would be the actual number that would help? is it unlimited? that is a quintessential liberal position that we can spend all of this government money and keep doing it and that is how we will take care of society. can we do $40 trillion? $50 trillion? how far are we going to go? >> when obama came in, the annual deficit, the annual

number, how much money taken versus how much you spend -- the collective debt -- how much in bonds had been issued to various bondholders, the annual deficit number when obama came was $1.2 trillion. where it is this year is $1.1 trillion. it came back down. we are not talking about someone who has completely gone off the deep end. every year, your collective debt is going to grow. but we saw these numbers of the collective debt is more or less these numbers combined -- they do not take into account inflation which happens to some degree all the time. it is a bit of a misnomer. at is how much can you shoulder, the ratio of debt to gdp, the overall economy. right now that is fairly high. it is not high as it was during

world war ii, at its highest, but it is up there. so far, we cannot sustain that in perpetuity, but we have been holding on. interest rates are low. inflation is low. those are things to worry about. if you let your desk of hand,-- if you let your debts get out of hand. that has not happened. if you stayed at this level for 10 years, maybe it would, but wethat is why obama has proposed some kind of long-term deficit ratio down to a more reasonable, 40%. is it sustainable over time? there is no nation in the world debt ratio. except maybe for libya under gadhafi.

after thead few warehouer great depression when we did not have as much keynesian economics. i do think we can sustain some, but it would be better to find a way to cut what you do not need. too much excess in the military for example. find more creative ways. the real debt driver is health care. there is an argument to make that obama care might well at the end of the day totally solve the problem depending on how well the various expand torment -- experimental pilot programs go. no one cannot them out perfectly because they are experimental.

there are plans in place. there are things that are crony implemented and ideas on the table that would presumably give the level down to an acceptable level over time, not in an abrupt way. >> it is a shame we still do not have the conservatives here. i am certainly not going to defend george w. bush that the suspended or running up of the debt. the debt is what matters. it reached the point under obama. we have to except these facts. the issue is how do we stop that? it will not be done through a combination of tax increases and reduction in spending, which are never reduction in spending but the rate of growth of new

spending. certainly the united states has. they have actually spend a little last year over year than they have before. the state i just came from under jerry brown has managed to do that, too. we will only get there through cutting spending in the united states. the idea you have tax increases, close the deficit that way. the thing president obama is trying in france right now -- president or prime minister, i forget what she is. that is 75% tax rate. history has shown again and again going back to the first deficit that hoover ran during the great depression when they began the process that franklin roosevelt continued of deficit spending in order to take up the slack in aggregate demand.

you never reduce your debt that way. the new line -- money that comes in its fund a new monies that, in. those programs perpetuate themselves and required new spending and borrowing. cutting spending is only way to get there. this was the shining input of the two-party. i should apologize for my fellow cosmotarians that did not give proper credit to the tea party. this is the first time in my lifetime that anyone has been out there in the massive protest movement objected specifically to spending. that was not their focus. the focus was to stop the spending. because a lot of those people believe in jesus or whatever, libertarians did not give them as much credit as they deserve.

we need to get there and it set up. -- except it. this is where bill and i will come to a real difference in opinion. that is great. that is when you will get real prosperity. bill clinton showed it. i longer for the days of bill clinton would be solve the deficit going down, and partly because the republicans in congress tied them up. they presented the government from doing its duty. that is what the system is supposed to do. it is designed that way so the different branches keep each other in check. that is what you see real prosperity. >> but he raise taxes. there were on the floor.

i know, but the actual reduction in the deficit started after the republicans took over congress and

how do you see foreign policy from a liberal perspective considering that balm's considered predecessor's policy? >> a few things.

i don't accept the premise of the question in terms of much of the -- obama himself has not interpreted it as saying -- >> we have the power but i won't do it. >> i don't think that's quite accurate. but he said that it is a very vague sentence in the bill. they said it doesn't give it any more power that's in previous legislation 2001 that's specifically about terrorists, foreign terrorists. they don't have the right to take american citizens and throw them in jail indefinitely. having said that, you know, there really isn't a singular liberal foreign policy vision nor there is a conservative one. there are different strains in both parties and both ideologies. there are some people on the left who are angry at obama for the things that you state or belief in the things that you state and -- and those like

myself who don't see it that way. who see very big differences between obama foreign policy and bush foreign policy and obama and civil liberty and bush and civil liberties. on civil liberties, obama ended systematic torture, period. it does not happen now. now, there are some individual circumstances that they're pointing to that i don't believe have been fully verified jet and that individuals may do bad things at times. there's no human rights organizations suggesting that it had the policy that bush did. and on the broader foreign policy question, i think it is a huge, huge earth shattering difference that obama is on the side of bottom up democracy in the middle east, in countries even when the dictators are our allies.

it is unheard of for an american president to push out an ally who is a dictator because the people have turned on that person. i'll defer the point. under reagan, that was not -- you can jump in. >> i don't the issue of philippines that well. i don't think it was an across the board policy for reagan to turn our dictator friends or play dictator. >> is it across the board policy in this administration to do that? >> well, you've had three years. you've had dramatic circumstances in egypt and libya and tunisia. they're working on syria. you could point to examples in borrow ran, for example, that's

not moving as fast. part of the obama philosophy is very -- which is very interesting is trying to find what is possible in this area that does not get america caught in the trap of unnecessary war, repetition of quagmire. you have two examples of egypt and libya which are most striking. people on the streets clear my opposition to the dictator there. there are plenty of examples, for example, bush in tan man square. -- ton man square. -- tiananmen square. there's lots of examples where we tell folks -- bush sr. and iraq telling saddam if you want to crack down the shia, so be it

. and because of that factor, that's one of the key factors that got them pushed out. libya was a different story where you have the possibility of a massacre occurring and obama said i would like to stop that from happening, very much so. but if i can't get a true blue international coalition through the u.n., then i might not do it. >> how about a true blue declaration of war through our own congress or even the fig leaf of congressional authorization that bush had? >> if they wanted to cut the funding, they could have cut the funding. they chose not to. they chose the posture -- tos chure because they knew obama was in the rights.

>> we cannot manage outcomes in a foreign country. i am very afraid to teach you that. what is happen in the iran world is happening there. whether we like it or not. obama didn't like it. hillary clinton did not like it. and when we finally got around it to, it was a done deal. what we decided was not going to make any difference in egypt. as far as libya, you know, that one, at first, it seemed like we got lucky or excuse me, ka coffey went down easily. -- qaddafi went down easily. god only knows what's going to happen in syria. we sit here talking about oh, we're always going to do this. shiites believe that.

oh, we can back in the sunnis here and there. this stuff, i spend a lot of time in that part of the world. it doesn't even make sense when you're there, let alone when you're sitting here and thinking you're going to sit there making it all work out. i'm sorry, jim stole my thunder. i was going to mention the humble foreign policy. i'm still waiting for my country to rise up and live out the promise of that creed. >> well, i think that's what i'm talking about when i discussed humility. the idea that it would even be desirable for us to flip a switch and dictate political outcomes in foreign countries and we can say yeah, these are bottom-up revolutions as opposed to -- you're dealing with political factions within foreign countries about which we have very limited knowledge. we have very limited knowledge about how to affect the outcomes that we want. how often do we arm factions,

give material support to factions, support individual people in government and outside of government. saddam hussein being a very good example who ultimately become our enemies? american foreign policy should be focused on as best as we can tell the interest of the united states because that is what we are most knowledgeable about. when we get into the idea that we're going to rebuild foreign countries about which we have very limited knowledge, i think we're setting yourself up for failure and disappointment. >> i think you're putting a lot of words in obama's mouth on this. he is not talking about -- >> it's a bipartisan criticism. [laughter] >> fair enough. but to get back to what both of you and tim were talking about, the concern -- i mean, the problem with the bush approach to this was when you try to impose your beliefs to point the gun, people may not like it and you may get a lot of backlash for it and that might fuel terrorism and weaken your

national security. i was at a point with the bush administration for a reason. what's going on in libya is not like that. this is bottom up. the opposition covers -- there's no picking and choosing on our part. we're not handpicking whether who the leaders are. there are people in the coalition that are not our best friend. the president of egypt is not our best friend. >> you could say the same of iraq. the current government in iraq is not exactly in our best interest. >> it ended that way. they fail on what they want to accomplish but they tried hard to impose who they wanted there and they couldn't pull it off. in this case, they said -- and this happened in syria right now where hillary said you exiles don't reflect the world of people. we need a coalition in syria that's truly reflective of all the people.

otherwise, it's not going to work. and libya in bengali, they said you did not see the libyan people turn on us off this. they're on the streets siding with us after that attacks. attacks are going to happen. there's going to be militants in a lot of different places. we can't control human behavior. but if we're on the right of the right, it is going to happen. >> go ahead, jim. would you have supported the iraq war if george w. bush had picked the right side, the right faction within iraq to support? >> if there was a reason beyond -- not just that there was a coalition in and of itself -- well, let me rephrase. if it was very clear that the people of iraq want to overthrow their leader and needed help to do it, and if i won't the u.n. to get that help. >> if there were large numbers of iraqis that would have liked to be overthrown. >> there's a much more sectarian

situation. >> sure it was. >> and libya was not a sectarian situation so you had a situation where you had -- you were in support with the vast majority of the people and you had a broad backing and there was no way it could be toward as a u.s.-alone attack to try to, you know, scoop up natural resources for yourself and cause blowbacks. yes, i would be for it. >> i have seen this movie before and hearing this talk about we're not going to bring in the exiles and we're going to pick legitimate people within the country to do that and tom freed-man, oh, my gosh, please. i saw it. you guys were in school at the time. even there, you probably got the idea that it didn't work out so hot. let's just let things happen the way they're going to -- let other people worry about their own countries. we have enough problems in this country. >> jim, did you have -- [applause]

>> yeah, that's fairly similar to my own view. >> ok. >> do i have one question i could ask bill. if it was 2005, and it was george w. bush who wanted to do the intervention, would you supported it then? >> won't the u.n. >> ok. well, let's do something related to the military and foreign policy and that's the issue of military spending. manny on the left often -- many on the left criticize on the right. mitt romney in this election proposed we spend $2 trillion while still saying he's going to balance in the annual deficit. i'll start with you, bit. you're sort -- your sort of perspective and on military spending. even with obama and his foreign policy and spending keeps going up. >> some folks on the left don't talk about this in a great way. i mean, national security is the kind of thing where most people want national security. you don't want -- you're not

going to penny pinch national security if you feel like it's not going to make you safe. you're not going to approach it strictly on a numbers basis. by the same token, throwing money in the national security does not necessarily solve your problems. >> unless you're ben bernanke. [laughter] >> just buy any weapon system that comes down the pike does not necessarily make you safe. right now, we have a situation where the pentagon is saying we don't need as much money as mitt romney is proposing. that's not necessary, number one. they are -- some are not love the restraints that obama is putting on it but there's a general adage saying let's put our heads to the grindstone and figure out how to do that. you're not having great panic in the military that having some restrain is going to make us all of a sudden a third-rate military. so right now, it seems like there is room to cut there.

there's a need to cut where you can. that seems to be a place where you can do it safely without jeopardizing national security but you want to do that analysis with professionals, with experts. some independent from the complex who have a stake in the matter to tell you this is a place that you can cut safely without jeopardizing america's ability to respond to attacks, to deter attacks, etc. and right now -- >> so that's where you would start with the cuts? >> right now, yes. >> do you agree and i will get to tim and jim's opinion on this. we're looking at the national debt and the greatest strain by and large is entitlement. second would be foreign policy. so-called defense. would you agree we need to reform bill as well, entitlements, testing, something that would saves money there? i'm just doing a follow-up. go ahead, tim. >> i would -- >> because there are two sides to the same equation. senator ron paul said we cannot cut the debt or do something to

address the deficit without looking at domestic spending and foreign spending. that's how we're going to have to compromise both parties. would you say that we need to do something as paul ryan has proposed with the entitlement system and have -- maybe some way to save money there. >> we have done that. i realize obama care is deficit reduction. it's hard to quantify specifically because a lot of it's experimental. but most folks say the main driver of deficit and debt is excessive health care spending. there's a way to restrain it that doesn't deny you health care that you need. the obama care plan is let's try it on a bunch of pilots and see what works best and let's learn as we go. and so it strikes me as very short-sighted. even if you don't like it from the get co. i didn't like clinton's welfare reform efforts.

i'm not totally on board. give it a shot. and some ways, it worked better than i thought it would. but it was good to try it. it was good to try and see what works and what doesn't. even if you're an opponent, because this issue is so serious this is arguably some of the best ways they take a handle of it. eat up your skeptical let's see how far it goes. >> you see most folks are for it. most americans are not for it. the affordable care act didn't never really got -- like the invasion of iraq, it never got above 50% popular approval and it's only gone down since then. you know, saying it's an experimental deficit redux and we'll see how that works out sounds to me lick a look like we have to pass this thing so you guys can see what's in it. the affordable care act is a monstrosity. nothing that long can be that good. it's in the nature of all

documents and i'll say this as a libertarian on the randy and point of view. i'll even say the longer the things goes on, the worst it gets. and, you know, we'll have to go over that. but obviously, entitlements have to be part of -- our reduction in spending but defense has to be a big redux too. and we need to not only reduce our defense spending, we need to reduce the number of missions we are using for our defense capabilities for. most of the country or many of the countries where we have troops are countries that are well able to defend themselves. it makes no sense whatever. i am not convinced whether you get into the bayonets or the horses or the aircraft carriers

or the nuclear submarines or whatever. it's just about power projections. it's not clear to me that we need to project our power everywhere in the world or you need to be fighting undeclared wars on five continents, including this one, if you count the drug war and everything we've done in central and south america, you know, fighting drugs, supposedly. we need to really, really rethink how much we want to intervene. how much we want to stick our noses into other people ease business. and in doing that, you're going to have to put up with a lot of coverage in the new york times from people saying why won't america come and help us? america can't just keep coming and helping you. you need to help yourself. the government shouldn't be coming to help people in the united states in most cases. certainly shouldn't be coming to help people in other countries. the purpose of our military is to defend this country and to keep our own people and our own interest safe. >> so ka aftery massacre his

people, that's ok? >> no, it's not ok but it's not something that i have a solution to. there are a lot of things that i don't have a solution to. >> jim? >> what's interesting is a lot of conservatives when it comes to the defense budget accept logic that they would reject any other portion portion of the budget. being any cut in government spending on defense-related programs means by definition that you are hurting defense. we wouldn't necessarily accept that any cut anywhere in the education budget hurts education. or that if cut anywhere in the welfare budget would necessarily hurt social welfare. but when it's defense, a lot of conservatives accept that line of reasoning. secondly arc lot of conservatives say the beneficiaries of this defense spending say it will be bad if we cut this spending. therefore, obviously, we can't cut the spending. but that's not logic conservatives would accept with all kind of government spending.

we wouldn't say when teachers say the best thing we can do is to stimulate the economy is to hire more teachers, well, the answer is of course. they're teachers. the best thing to stimulate the economy would be to hire more conservative journalists. [laughter] it's self-evident that would work and it's logic conservatives reject with most other forms of spending but when it comes to defense spending. they accept. they begin to talk about the loss of jobs if you close down a military base and the multiplier effect that they would have is that the hairdresser who, you know, is cut the troop's hair won't have a job at that point. and that may be true but that could be argued with every government program. with other government programs, we look in terms of how that money could otherwise be spent and how that -- who might otherwise be employed and what

other economic opportunities are lost as a result of that government spending. but when it's defense spending, conservatives have sort of a blind shot spot with that. the purpose of national defense is that. it is defending the nation and then after that, it is only secondly, way secondly about any other objective about people who keep the military spending employed. if it is not advantageous, it should be cut. if it's necessary for a national security, it should be spent. that is not to say that that is solving our problems but that is the basic rules that would solve a lot of the problems. >> ok. we have gone over time because we have a late start, but we're going to have some closing statements from each person down the line. i guess we'll start with you, bill. >> thanks very much. thanks for having us here. that was a great discussion. i just want to say it is often said wrongly this is the most

important election of our lifetimes. i do think it's a very unique moment in american history. i do think obama's victory could portend a major ideological shift in the country and obama's loss would be aversion to where we were a decade ago. and i think with our foreign policy, i think it is very unique and very promising what's going on in the economy, we're struggling right now but we could be doing some major advancements for the environment. obviously, the youth vote is very critical in this election. when i was a kid, no one was interested in it all that much. you're lucky and blessed to be listened to and to be part of this election and you might dictate the course of the country going forward. >> tim? >> well, since i'm lucky pierre, i will talk about both sides.

bill, i want your people to step up a little bit. we talk about fiscally conservative and socially liberal. i like to see some socially liberal liberals. we didn't get into the drug wars. we didn't get into drones or a bunch of other things. and, you know, i'd like to see something on the left on that. as far as i can see, we've gotten bupkis from obama on all of those issues. you know, every couple of years, there's a big debate that will hold in some hall just like this one about is there any, you know, is the connection between libertarians and conservatives coming to an end? and my friend jonah goldberg always comes up with -- has a pretty good line that he says. libertarians are very useful to conservatives because they always ask the question should the government even be doing this thing that we're talking about? and i like to return that favor a little bit. i think that are some things that libertarians can learn from conservatives. among them, one of the roots of conservatism, you know, after

eight years of bush and four years of obama, i'm not sure what conservatives or liberals stand for but one of the bases of conservatism is the idea that we are fallen people, that people are not perfectable. you are not going to get any change or behavior. you're not going to social engineer any great differences in the way people are. and, you know, i think that is a valuable thing. i'd like to see it in action. i'm not real excited about this election. i'm going to vote for gary johnson. but when i look at what has budged in the last couple of years in terms of things i'm interested in, hasn't really -- i haven't gotten so much from reasoning or gary johnson, hasn't be coming so much from the cueto institute. it's been the tea party and it's been ron paul that have really pushed core libertarian issues to the forefront to the point where talking about the fed is no longer crazy talk. and i appreciate that and those

people come out of the conservative side and i'd like to see some more deliverables from the liberals. so bill, get to work. [laughter] >> jim? >> i want to thank everybody for coming, for at least the brief period i've been through. i want to thank the young americans and my colleagues for being here with me. this is a very interesting election. it's really the first in my lifetime that i can't with any degree of confidence predict to you what the outcome is going to be. mitt romney -- if you put a gun to my head right now, i would say there was probably going to a popular elect torell vote mismatch but it there be the opposite, mitt romney winning the vote and president obama get the electorate. the margins are so slender that we don't know. conservatism is at a crossroads and a lot is not necessarily riding on the outcome of the election as much as how conservatives respond to the outcome of the election. if mitt romney is elected, there

are certainly many opportunities for conservatives, particularly in terms of pursuing a paul ryan like entitlement reform which the country definitely needs to get the debt to g.d.p. ratio back to a sustainable level. but there's also a risk that conservatives revert to the bush era tendency regardless of whether it is conservative, regardless of whether it is consistent with the rhetoric that was used during the campaign, regardless of whether it's in the interest of the country. and i think that that is something that we hope if conservatives will have internalized a lot of of the rhetoric in the argument they've made against obama and be willing to be consistent to apply those to the romney administration as well. i think in terms of if the president is re-elected, i think that's a very good opportunity for conservatives who are very fastidious about the constitution works are more

skeptical about erosions of civil liberties than earlier generations of conservatives. conservatives who might be a little bit more willing to scrutinize the pentagon budget those factions of the right and of the republican party would be strengthened to some extent by the president's re-election as they've been strengthened by the grassroots activism against the president for the last four years. so i see opportunities and risks to really either elect the outcome and as important as politics are in getting like-minded candidates elected, it's important for conservatives to focus on their first principles and try to apply them regardless of the political situation and scenarios that they find themselves in. >> and i'd like to thank jim, tim, and bill for being here today. we were going to and a q&a and they are able to take your questions afterwards. i like to thank young american liberals. we've done a fun of these

campuses and tonight was no exception. it was very enjoyable. thank you for coming. i appreciate it very much. [applause] >> i would like to get your opinions on the matter of whether or not do we as a country want to continue slaying people at the behest of a joystick pretty much, almost indefinitely both obama and romney have supported the increased use of drones in counter-terrorism operations but under what legal authority or even moral authority do we have to just continue to kill people almost indefinitely and without

any kind of congressional declaration of war? all we are really operating under is an authorization from military force against al qaeda in response to 9/11. it's been 11 years. how far do we keep going with this? >> can i start on this one? it is a terrific question and i'm a little bit off the reservation on this one because if you put drone in the headline, it'll boost your traffic by at least 50%. it is a hot topic. and it is rightly a hot topic. there is one thing i want to make -- put on this though, and one spin -- not a spin but just an observation, is that you know, the problem isn't the technology. the problem is the mission. a drone is just a tool and there are going to be new tools and warfare for as long as there is warfare and i don't know that we should necessarily not be veiling ourselves of them.

we -- availing ourselves of them. we saw the statistics about 49 collateral, you know, civilians for every one target killed. i don't know how that stacks up against piloted air attacks, i think the real problem for drones is if they reduce the cost of usage and therefore, take away the incentive for using. it's easier to blow people up in the air now than it used to be. this shouldn't be a matter of cost. it should be a matter of decision we don't need to be taking these missions on. we should not be blowing people up on the air from a plane or a drone. there's a lot of collateral from an f-16 corming whatever that new joint strike fighter is going to be. and blowing people up on the ground. this is not something that's specific to drones. drones make it cheaper to do all that.

it's all when the only tool you have is a harper, and everything else looks like a nail. as both domestically and internationally, where drones are coming to town or a city near you, and again, i'm not sure that we need to say, you know, no police can ever use a drone because there are legitimate police reasons to be wanting to be using an aircraft. i was walking my youngest kid in l.a. a couple of years ago in a stroller trying to get her to sleep at night. i got followed for two blocks in hollywood by a lapd helicopter with its spotlight on me. i ended up going like this make him go away. and this was a piloted craft. if it had been a drone following me, it wouldn't have made any difference. this is the problem. we have these police treating all of the citizens like they're criminals and need to be kept under control and overseas, we have this, you know, boundless

military that needs to be taking out bad guys in some cases but in a lot of cases, just needs to be hitting targets and that's the problem. it's not so much >> anybody else have a question? did you want to follow-up? >> so, i think the way tim phrased the question is exactly right. do you think we should be fighting a war at this point, or should we not? is the way we're going about it and effective way or what caused ack.owb i think allocated is still a problem -- i think al qaeda is

still a problem. you get attacked the next week if you say it prematurely. i wasn't going to say that. >> it benghazi --like benghazi. >> benghazi was local. i do think there is still a reason to use them now. i don't think there is no reason not to use that. you want to be careful about the incentive question. you do not want to be willy- it.y oabout if we are causing something in

pakistan, that would be a serious issue to look at. pakistan has never been a wholly stable place. this has gone on for a while. policy thatforeign is more legitimate pro- democracy. we are dampening the potential for blowback. >> i think if you blow up the wedding party, the people do not think about what your objectives were or what ideology was governing why the strikes were happening. i would not often cite donald rumsfeld in terms of restraint and use of military force. at one point he asked an important question that applies

to drones. are we killing more terrorists than we are creating and vice versa? i think that is the metric you have to be looking and at. i don't have a problem with the use of targeted killings of high-value terrorist targets. i have some questions about process. the extent of collateral damage in conducting the strikes in the first place. >> thank you. >> when the president is being chastised for the use of drones, you know the baltics has shifted. any other questions? thank you for being here. it has been a great conversation.

>> the deficit will be fixed by cutting government access and by increasing revenue. how do you feel about legalizing or regulating drugs as a means of doing both of those? >> i'm all for it. i do not want anything taxed at all. we may be getting to a pragmatic prohibition. it became expedient to legalized alcohol so you could be getting some of the -- the government can be getting some proceeds from that great cash crop. marijuana is the greatest cash crop in the country. i am looking for the liberals to step up to the plate. "wait till obama gets

reelected." legalization is not some liberal fancy. in the opinion polls in the states, it is more popular than gay marriage and more popular than a lot of stuff that has moved into the consensus of acceptable discussion. only in official washington where this has that been accepted. i have never in my life heard legalization of drugs talked about in a presidential debate until the first republican primary debate of either the end of this year last year when gary johnson and ron paul brought it up. they did not get booed off the stage. they got left out by mitt romney and the rest of them.

take-out the superstructure of the party apparatus and everybody takes it seriously. maybe these guys will contradict me. >> i prefer taxes on consumption as opposed to on investment or anything that creates additional income. i'm not a fan of the drug war. i would be skeptical of marijuana legalization. i would have to see some numbers to see if it would bring the types of numbers that we are talking about. it would be a tough thing to do politically. i'm not sure if it's something you can put in the context of a deficit reduction package. a serious package would entail other things that are difficult to do.

>> i think most liberals are where you are. i don't think liberals have abandoned the issues the way you suggest. there are some in the liberal community and there is an appetite for what you're saying . i would look at what will be best for public health. if there was a shift for treatment, it would be a private reason for me to do it. the politics are very tricky. it wasn't popular, we would not be talking about it. there is a momentum towards it on certain issues, particularly

marijuana. jimmy carter tried this and he got burned. it just takes one party with a bunch of 13-year-old to get out of hand and become a media sensation. politicians are concerned about that. on paper, a drug user --that itself is a problem. let's to a shift here in our approach. if it becomes a massive political liability and gets blown out of proportion by the media. harrison evidence to suggest drug use in adolescence is the worst possible time for your

brain to be using drugs. that is not going to happen. the blowback be pretty harsh. i like to see more of an emphasis on treatment. >> i think i may have said legalization is more popular. i meant more broadly liberalization of the drug wars and winding down the drug wars which is a big public health problem in this country. it is a disgrace we have this presidential debate about foreign policy and nobody mentioned the 60,000 people that were killed in mexico because of the air war on drugs. thank you. >> i just want to move this up -- i want to thank you for coming out.

there was discussion about the response to the financial crisis. there was a much discussion on the cause of the financial crisis and the bubble. i'm sure bill will say things about deregulation and i want to know your opinion specifically on what caused the housing bubble and subsequent housing crisis. >> i think he stated them pretty adequately for all three of us. i'm not sure the recession never ended. we had indefinite stagnation with extraordinary low interest rates and the creation of this housing bubble that papered over a lot of the problems. i do want to mention federal

reserve policy, which has -- which was a big driver. when youa problem -- guarantee a bet, you'll have more people taking that bet. 3% increase in tuition cost -- 300% increase in tuition cost. make it more affordable so everybody can get an education. that is when you see the prices spiked. the current generation of graduates will be left holding the bag on this because of the huge amount of student debt. you had this bubble which was artificially created by loose

monetary policy, by a policy that george w. bush pushed himself. he wanted to get the rate of home ownership -- about how many americans owned their homes. he wanted to get that up. he got to about 69%. in my view it is to collapse even further. we have seen an increase in the house prices that has not been wound down and still needs to wind down further. i get ulcers on my ulcers when i see another news story that "the real estate story is turning to hell." the real inflation of the prices is the problem.

>> you look at regulations more here than at the federal reserve. there are economic debates were people are more particulate on the subject than i. this happened after the great depression, too. it is hard to pinpoint all the time. -- you point to get thaat have to look at the deregulation. some people might say that clinton repealed and the republican congress repealed glass-steagall. and therefore the crisis happened. it can directly go from point a

to point b there. i do think you can say a major shift in financial regulation occurred because of the law that happen with wiin clinton's last term. we have all these innovations we want to try and you're not letting us. it and watching carefully. if something goes wrong with the financial system, it is really bad. i do not think the attitude was in store following that. there was evidence the housing bubble was occurring. "if you did know the housing bubble was coming, you weren't paying attention."

that should been paid closer attention to at the time. "what can we pass to clamp down on these practices?" that is where we are today. i don't think the solution is to wash your hands of the regulations. >> a final question. >> great panel. my question is about the economy. i'm not sure who mentioned it. liberals are born conservative on fiscal spending. tim, you believe liberals are more -- you believe in letting the economy fall and it somehow builds itself.

this does sound a little crazy. the top 85% of the wealthy somehow -- they consume -- ok. let me put it right words. they consume 50% of all the revenues that are going into gdp or the economy. they consume 40% that goes into their pocket and they spent 50%. they do somehow stimulate the economy. tim said somewhere about nobody is spending -- everybody is holding onto what they have. enough will the people to stimulate the economy but there's no reason to do it

because it is not profitable for those individuals. shouldn't there be some kind of protocol, people that profited in the last decades? >> are you asking if we should pay more? >> i am more thinking of an emergency situation where there would have to take -- >> you want them to buy more stuff? >> or a cap on what they can make? >> the lower and middle class have been hurt. i feel like it is unfair. should there be some kind of policy for the wealthy people to actually somehow put out

whatever is needed to keep the economy going? >> redistribution of wealth. >> we are running full out on tried to get people to spend everything that they have, and that goes for rich and poor. everybody agrees that capitalism is the greatest engine of prosperity. libertarians believe that. the basic ideas of capitalism is that you need to -- need wealth formation and in need people to flee their nest egg -- to fill out their nest egg before they go out and spend it. nobody is saving. we have extremely low savings rates. i believe the experiment has

tried and failed. we to get away from the idea of getting people to spend more. the in a call the question is a different thing -- the inequality question is a different thing. it is not something -- i am not rich enough nor poor enough for that to be something that makes a lot of sense to me. i want to be part of the 1%. we have a fairly progressive taxation right now. something that nobody wants to talk about is that if you want to get revenues up, you need to start taxing more people. tim kaine in virginia mentioned

it by accident in one of the debates. we have lots of people that are paying no taxes that are not rich. >> not all taxes. >> that is the opposite of what you're talking about. the rich to pay the lion's share of taxes in this country. nobody wants to talk about broadening the tax base. it is politically real active -- radioactive. >> michele bachmann did. there was a lot of talk on the right about broadening the tax base. there is a gaping -- it doesn't strike me -- >> this is what the numbers tell

you. >> people pay sales taxes and state and local taxes. the notion there is widespread freeloadering non is debunked. what you do about the situation -- i'm not a socialist. it should not be that rigid. you want the mobility to move up. if you have policies that engineer great concentrations of wealth, you lose the ability to move up. if you had no estate tax and you can pass down to your heirs, you

haven't aristocracy, -- you would have an aristocracy. we have stopped that. you did not want to be so severe that it's not worth it to pursue your economic terms. there is plenty of room in the tax code to do that. we do need some policy that taxes the wealthy fairly and doesn't punish success. we get the government that we wanted. the recession of today was not as bad as the great depression. we have some policies in place. we didn't have food stamps back in 1929. that is part of the design of

the program when it was started. the whole point is to have that there in and economically harsh times so you did not fall off the cliff. you want people to have some dollars to spend. program.e point of the one of the failings has some value in not letting the poor languish on dependency. we should try to protect those policies. it was not useful in a time of recession. you have x number of years before you find a job or we cut you off. that does not work. that is a weakness in the safety net. the poverty numbers that you

see this not account for those benefits. they did not include the benefits you get. we have cushioned the blow and that is a good thing. we need to get to the next level or have a fair tax code again. we'll reduce the inequalities and investing in things that help the entire economy. >> ok,jim is going to have the final word. >> i would like -- would be interesting to tackle it all the things things will buy and the revenue you would get from doing that. a flaw in the way some of the economic statistics are

calculated is there is bias in favor of consumption. we have to look at production as a wealth creating activity. production next consumption possible. i have in the bias in favor of consumption, which sometimes neglect house savings can be beneficial to the long-term betterment of people. a capital improvements in the 20th-century that tracks close to two increases in wages and ordinary people's standards. in terms of going to the shopping mall is an oversimplification in how economies are driven forward. that is why we end up with the misconceptions that you can stimulate the economy by taking

some water from the shallow end of the pool and dumping it into the deep end of the pool. you are trying to redistribute and alter the composition rather than grow the pie. you get a more growth-based focus. >> i would like to thank everybody for coming out tonight. thank you for sticking with us. >> president obama and mitt romney will be focused on ohio today. they will both be in columbus. president obama also travels to wisconsin and iowa today. c-span asked reporters what they are watching for on election night. here is what one of them had to say.

>> the big picture on election night is that republicans are going to hold the house. almost no one thinks they have a shot to win the house. we will watch for a few key states. the state of new york. there are a few races in play. that is a pretty democratic area. a close race upstate in new york. a former congressman is trying to take back that seat. we will also watch illinois. democrats have a chance to eat away at some of those seats. has been some controversy. there is a child support issue.

he is running against a hero, duckworth. but for the name bob dole in chicago -- look for the name bob dole. same thing out in colorado. if you stay up late, watch that race with two democrats going against each other. the race got nasty. one candidate threatened to throttle the other. >> mr. anything that would surprise you -- is there anything that would surprise you? >> if the democrats picked up more than 10 seats. they need to pick up even more than 25 seats to get the majority. the internal projections are

some more around 10. if the democrats could more than 10, they should be happy. if they get single digits, kind of a bad night for democrats. if you want to watch for other west, what's the allen race in south florida. he has become a national figure. the media loves him because he gives controversial quotations. he is favored to win but it will be tight. watch the race with michele bachmann. she always manages to survive. she always seems to survive